Monday, April 29, 2013

Amanuensis Monday - Probate Records of Joseph Ladd (ca 1613-1683) of Portsmouth, Rhode Island

Genea-blogger John Newmark (who writes the excellent TransylvanianDutch blog) started a Monday blog theme many months ago called Amanuensis Monday. What does "amanuensis" mean? John offers this definition:

"A person employed to write what another dictates or to copy what has been written by another."

The subject today is the probate file of Joseph Ladd (ca 1613-1683) of Portsmouth, Newport County, Rhode Island.  Joseph Ladd married Joanna ???? (ca 1630-????) before 1654.  They had five children:

*  Mary Ladd (1654-1728), married Robert Brownell
*  Sara Ladd (1657-????)
*  Joseph Ladd (1660-????), married Rachel ?????
*  William Ladd (1665-1729), married Elizabeth Tompkins
*  Daniel Ladd (1668-????)

Joseph Ladd of Portsmouth died testate, having written a will dated 12 April 1669, which was proved 24 July 1683.  The will reads (from the Town Records of Portsmouth, RI, transcribed in the Ladd Family book by Warren Ladd (1890)):

"April the 12th, 1669.  The last Will and Testament of Joseph Ladd, of Portsmouth on Rhode Island, in the Colony of Rhode Island, and Providence Plantation, in New England, in America, being in perfect memory; do substitute, ordain and appoint Joanna, my wife, my full and sole executrix to see my will performed; which is as follows: -- That all my visible estate shall remain in the hands of my wife for the bringing up of my children, so long as she, the said executrix, shall remain a widow; but in case she shall marry another man, then what my estate shall be shall remain no longer in the hands of my said wife, but in the hands of the Overseers, to be equally disposed of to my children, as followeth, namely:  That my son Joseph, at his mother's death or marriage, again, shall have my house and land, he paying, or causing to be paid, five pounds sterling apiece to his two brothers, if these surviving. viz.: my son William and Daniel, and what good or chattels shall remain of my estate, at the time aforesaid, to be equally divided betwixt my two youngest sons, and my two daughters, viz.: Mary and Sara; and in case either of my youngest sons decease before the time prefixed, then the five pounds above said to be paid betwixt his two sisters, to each an equal share, also in case my eldest son shall depart this life without issue, then the said house and land to fall necessarily to the next son as above said.  Lastly, I do desire and appoint my well beloved Friends, William Wodel and William Hall as Overseers, to see my estate be not imbeseld, and that it be disposed of according to my will above said, and that my children be not wronged by a father-in-law.

"That this is my will and Testament, which I desire may be performed. Witness my hand and seal, this day and year first above written.
...................................................................  his
......................................................... Joseph  }  Ladd    [seal]
.................................................................. mark

"Tests.  John Strange
William Lanny."

"John Strange, of the town of Portsmouth, aged seventy years or thereabouts, being deposed, testifieth that the above written was signed and sealed by the above named Joseph Lad, as his Last Will and Testament, and that in the presence of this deponent and the above named William Lany.  Taken upon oath before us,
John Albro, Assistant
George Lawton, Assistant"

The will of Joseph Ladd is fairly simple - it names all five of his children, living as of April 1669, and all are minors at that time.  I don't have any information about the death of the wife, Joanna, or if she married again (and possible submitted her children to "be not wronged by a father-in-law" - a step-father).

My ancestry is through the son, William Ladd, who married Elizabeth Tompkins, and their son, Joseph Ladd (1701-1749), who married Lydia Gray.

The URL for this post is:

copyright (c) 2013, Randall J. Seaver


Sandy Scott said...

Randy, the proved date is 1583; should it be 1683?

Randy Seaver said...

Yes, it should. good catch. Spell check doesn't catch number errors.

Thanks -- Randy